Should the US drill for more oil?

[apdst]

Then why aren't they producing enough for us? Nothings really stopping them.

Even if we opened up all of our land to drilling their would not be enough oil to satisfy the U.S. demands. Also remember, just because oil is in the ground does not mean it would be profitable to get.

If we attempted to produce only our own oil prices would sore because we could not produce enough and companies would be forced to use marginal oil fields.

Because the government is threatening te oil companies with outrageous punitive taxes, cap and trade and aren't issueing drilling permits. Oil companies, like any other business isn't going to operate in a non-business friendly environment.

Don't forget, we also have some of the largest gas fields in the world. We could use the hell out of all the natural gas that we can produce with little effort.

 

[apdst]

Why not save our oil for a rainy day and put a manhattan type project together to help weene ourselves off of our high dependence of oil?

Michael Moore said in an email that Detroit needs to get away from producing cars with internal cumbustion engines, and to concentrate on green cars and mass transit.

One of the things he pointed out, dispite our talk over the last few decades of putting together a high speed rail system, it is all talk and little action. I have ridden the high speed rail system in China and it is very nice. I have ridden Amtrak in the USA and while it is nice, it has a lot of problems, from being slow to not serving the real needs of the people, especially at an affordable price. For instance, in China I can take the train, from a crowded non air conditioned one for $12 from the central part of China to the coast, to the high speed bullit train in luxury for $50. Buses are the same thing. In the USA we have cars, buses, trains and planes, but of those we don't have many "class" choices to help make it affordable for most everyone.

.

As long as the economy is in the toilet, there won't be anything to spur innovation.

 

[Just Plain Jim]

As long as the economy is in the toilet, there won't be anything to spur innovation.

That was one of Moore's issues, as a way to get America back to work, the economy on the right track and to spur innovation.

 

[danarhea]

Drill? Yes.

Pickens Plan? Yes.

Build some more nukes? Yes.

Solar? Yes.

Biofuels from bacteria? Yes.

Drilling for oil is only a stop gap measure, though. We need the rest to be kicking in when the oil finally runs out.

Check this out.......

Bacteria that poops oil.

An area the size of Chicago could create all the oil the US needs. We would then have all the oil we want, and we could tell the Arabs to go eat theirs.

 

[apdst]

Drilling for oil is only a stop gap measure, though. We need the rest to be kicking in when the oil finally runs out.

That's right. Unbridled oil production would cause an economic recovery, pump billions of revenue into the economy and the bi-product of that would be new fuel research and developement. At the end of the day, it's going to be the oil companies that pour money into alternate fuel projects and as long as their finances are under assault, that isn't going to happen.

 

[obvious Child]

Oil is a commodity. Supply and demand determine the price. Russia and OPEC aren't stupid enough to jack the price up on oil so that no one can afford it. They would be shooting themselves in the foot. Think about it.

Except you completely ignored what I wrote. But thanks for implicitly admitting that price is indeed relevant, which is an admission your statement earlier was false.

First you claim: "Pricing has nothing to do with energy independence."

And then you argue that price can result in complete unaffordability and therefore, unusability. Forgetting what you initially argued eh?

 

[obvious Child]

Precisely. If we were producing most or all of our own oil, why would we pay any attention to OPEC prices? We could charge whatever we wanted. Look at Argentina. They produce a huge percentage of their own oil and pay about .61 a liter for gas. Yes, some of that is government subsidized, but it's still a lot better than paying $3 a gallon or more.

Correction: most of that is subsidized. Essentially, the only way to get off the OPEC oil pricing scheme is to severely interfere with the market to the point where government is giving out checks to reduce the price. But as $147 a barrel showed, that is not sustainable.

When we produce the product, we set the prices and if OPEC doesn't like it, they can pound sand.

Except that's not now commodity exchanges work. Apdst in previous posts argued that tiny producers can change the price in a market where the big producers set the price. That is what you are arguing. That a mom and pop grocer can force a Walmart Super Center to cut prices.

Doesn't make sense.

 

[Cephus]

Except that's not now commodity exchanges work. Apdst in previous posts argued that tiny producers can change the price in a market where the big producers set the price. That is what you are arguing. That a mom and pop grocer can force a Walmart Super Center to cut prices.

You're assuming that we'd be selling our oil on the open market so that we'd have to buy it back again. If we produced the oil, refined the oil and only sold the oil in the United States, then we could set whatever pricing structure we wanted and OPEC would have absolutely no control whatsoever.

 

[reefedjib]

You're assuming that we'd be selling our oil on the open market so that we'd have to buy it back again. If we produced the oil, refined the oil and only sold the oil in the United States, then we could set whatever pricing structure we wanted and OPEC would have absolutely no control whatsoever.

So you want to nationalize the oil industry?

 

[American]

The U.S. doesn't have the oil fields to replace or compete with foreign-bought oil. The long term benefit does not outweigh the long term cost. Okay, so you can drill for domestic oil, and then what? Once the pockets you find are depleted after 15-20 years, you still have to revert to the global market.

While domestic projects are invested in, the government is still paying double: to the foreign oil in the mean time, and to the domestic projects.

Not to mention, why would you cut off Canada and Mexico, which are right next door? Under NAFTA, oil is cheaper from them, and Canada is already your biggest supplier. Why would you shoot yourself in the foot by severing such an effective resource partner? It doesn't make sense.

The idea that the U.S. will ever be self-sufficient in ANYTHING is a delusion. We all depend on the global market to lower our domestic costs and to allow for specialization.

Please explain this.

 

[Cephus]

So you want to nationalize the oil industry?

Not necessarily put it in the hands of the government, I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to involve OPEC if we don't want to. If 100% of our domestic oil production is consumed within the U.S., OPEC can bite us collectively.

 

[reefedjib]

Not necessarily put it in the hands of the government, I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to involve OPEC if we don't want to. If 100% of our domestic oil production is consumed within the U.S., OPEC can bite us collectively.

You said previously:

If we produced the oil, refined the oil and only sold the oil in the United States, then we could set whatever pricing structure we wanted

The only way to set the price is to remove it from the market and nationalize it. If it is in the market, then OPEC is involved. If demand in China goes up, we'll sell our oil to them on margin. Prices go up for everyone. This is globalization, man.

 

[Cephus]

The only way to set the price is to remove it from the market and nationalize it. If it is in the market, then OPEC is involved. If demand in China goes up, we'll sell our oil to them on margin. Prices go up for everyone. This is globalization, man.

Only if you insist on playing by the rules as currently set. I see no reason why we ought to.

 

[apdst]

Except you completely ignored what I wrote. But thanks for implicitly admitting that price is indeed relevant, which is an admission your statement earlier was false.

First you claim: "Pricing has nothing to do with energy independence."

And then you argue that price can result in complete unaffordability and therefore, unusability. Forgetting what you initially argued eh?

That's right, price has nothing to do with energy independence. We can become energy independent simply by using our own resources and not buying foreign resources, no matter what the market pice is. We're not dependent on other countries for food and it has nothing to do with the price of a bushel of corn.

Except that's not now commodity exchanges work. Apdst in previous posts argued that tiny producers can change the price in a market where the big producers set the price. That is what you are arguing. That a mom and pop grocer can force a Walmart Super Center to cut prices.

Doesn't make sense.

You're not accounting for the fact that the US is one of OPEC's biggest customers, if not the biggest. If Wal-Mart's (OPEC) biggest cutomer suddenly decided not to wholesale to Wal-Mart (OPEC) because they could open their own store and retail their product cheaper, then yes, Wal-Mart would sit up and listen.

You don't know much about business, do you?

 

[obvious Child]

Only if you insist on playing by the rules as currently set. I see no reason why we ought to.

How are you going to isolate oil without nationalization/massive subsidiaries?

The only way to ignore the market price is to get off the market. Thus, you call for nationalization.

 

[obvious Child]

That's right, price has nothing to do with energy independence. We can become energy independent simply by using our own resources and not buying foreign resources, no matter what the market price is.

Too bad that you explicitly admitted that the price does affect the usability. And if price rises to a sufficiently high level, we cannot afford to use the oil we drill ourselves.

You don't even remember what you originally argued!

We're not dependent on other countries for food and it has nothing to do with the price of a bushel of corn.

Not quite. The sugar industry in the US is largely dependent upon artificial barriers to trade. If we had let the market actually decide the price, we'd be able to have far cheaper sugar based products. We are not dependent on other countries for certain foods because we produce sufficiently large amounts in a way we can set the price.

Clearly, you have absolutely no understanding of markets.

You are again arguing the asinine logic that a mom and pop store can force a Walmart Super Center to cut prices.

You're not accounting for the fact that the US is one of OPEC's biggest customers, if not the biggest.

Irrelevant. Price is relevant to energy independence. Your own statement admitted that.

You don't know much about business, do you?

Fallacy: changing the subject. You seem incapable of sticking to something you claim. Furthermore, you are insanely dishonest as I have explicitly argued in previous threads that a drop in US demand could destroy anti-US oil producers.....which you insulted me for.

Christ Sakes. Jallman is right. You don't even remember what side you are arguing for.

 

[apdst]

Too bad that you explicitly admitted that the price does affect the usability. And if price rises to a sufficiently high level, we cannot afford to use the oil we drill ourselves.

You don't even remember what you originally argued!

And, the only reason the price goes up, is because there is a shortage of supply and if we're constantly putting more oil onto the market, then the price will stabalize at worst; fall at best. Of course I remember what I originally argued...:rofl

Not quite. The sugar industry in the US is largely dependent upon artificial barriers to trade. If we had let the market actually decide the price, we'd be able to have far cheaper sugar based products. We are not dependent on other countries for certain foods because we produce sufficiently large amounts in a way we can set the price.

Clearly, you have absolutely no understanding of markets.

What'd I just say? DUH!!!!!

 

[obvious Child]

And, the only reason the price goes up, is because there is a shortage of supply and if we're constantly putting more oil onto the market, then the price will stabalize at worst; fall at best.

Except that the US cannot produce sufficiently large amounts to do that.

Which comes back to your asinine argument which equates to a Mom and Pop forcing Walmart Supercenters to lower their prices.

Of course I remember what I originally argued...:rofl

Not according to your posts.

What'd I just say? DUH!!!!!

I wasn't aware the US can add tens of millions of barrels a day to world supply. World daily consumption is over 80 million. Good luck proving the US can even make a dent in that. The ANWR is projected, if we started now to add at most a million in a decade.

Clearly, your understanding of supply and demand is exceedingly deficient.

Only a fool argues that small producers can force price setters to change prices. Which you do on a regular basis.

Clearly, you have absolutely no understanding of markets.

So which is to "thou who can't remember what he argued" Is price relevant or irrelevant to energy independence? You argued both yet insulted me for arguing it is.

 

[apdst]

Except that the US cannot produce sufficiently large amounts to do that.

Yes, we can. We already did it once, back in '73. We can do it again. We also have the pargest natural gas deposits in the world, which would allow us to convert to natural gas usage, therefore lowering the demand for oil.

I wasn't aware the US can add tens of millions of barrels a day to world supply. World daily consumption is over 80 million. Good luck proving the US can even make a dent in that. The ANWR is projected, if we started now to add at most a million in a decade.

Clearly, your understanding of supply and demand is exceedingly deficient.

Only a fool argues that small producers can force price setters to change prices. Which you do on a regular basis.

Clearly, you have absolutely no understanding of markets.

So which is to "thou who can't remember what he argued" Is price relevant or irrelevant to energy independence? You argued both yet insulted me for arguing it is.

Then, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[obvious Child]

Yes, we can. We already did it once, back in '73. We can do it again. We also have the largest natural gas deposits in the world, which would allow us to convert to natural gas usage, therefore lowering the demand for oil.

Which is not the subject. You argued that we could act as a large producer to change the price of oil by adding large amounts to the supply. Again, you don't even remember what you originally argued. That post is excellent evidence of your inability to stick to a position.

Then, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Says the user who can't even remember what he argued.

 

[apdst]

Which is not the subject. You argued that we could act as a large producer to change the price of oil by adding large amounts to the supply. Again, you don't even remember what you originally argued. That post is excellent evidence of your inability to stick to a position.



Says the user who can't even remember what he argued.

Are you hoping that if you say the same thing over and over that it will magically become true?

 

[Mason66]

Precisely. If we were producing most or all of our own oil, why would we pay any attention to OPEC prices? We could charge whatever we wanted. Look at Argentina. They produce a huge percentage of their own oil and pay about .61 a liter for gas. Yes, some of that is government subsidized, but it's still a lot better than paying $3 a gallon or more.

When we produce the product, we set the prices and if OPEC doesn't like it, they can pound sand.

If you take the price point of .61 per liter and muliply that by the conversion of 3.785 you get $2.31 per gallon. That is not much lower than the $3.00 price point in the US.

Even though they produce it it still comes out about the same.

 

[obvious Child]

Are you hoping that if you say the same thing over and over that it will magically become true?

Point out how you have stuck to your original argument if you think I am wrong.

Or you could just again pretend you have a clue.

In this thread alone you are all over the board. You are responding to less and less of my posts and increasingly with irrelevant statements. I do find it amusing how you criticized me for a position you now argued for.

 

[johnny_rebson]

Yes, we should let the oil companies in America drill wherever they want to.

The oil company CEOs would then show their appreciation to us by selling gas at 50 cents a gallon.